Burke's analysis of Mark 5

[Jonathan_Burke]

@gbrooks9

The idea that @Jonathan_Burke expects to convince anyone that either Jesus, or James or one of the other apostles, and/or Paul didn’t believe in expelling evil spirits is fairly laughable

Well I don’t expect to convince anyone here actually. But let’s be clear on the fact that this isn’t some random idea I came up with. It has a lengthy pedigree in Christian history. Additionally, you can find the same arguments I’m making in mainstream theological commentary.

Ferngren makes the same point I’ve made, that the gospels don’t tell us the personal opinions of Jesus or the gospel writers about demons.

“The Gospels do not record either Jesus’s explanation of the phenomenon of demonic possession or that of the Evangelists themselves. But although in individual instances some similarities existed between Jesus’s methods and those used by Jewish exorcists, in general, the divergences are much more significant.” [1]

Ferngren makes the same point I’ve made, that the very few attributions of physical impairment to demonic activity suggests that neither Jesus nor the gospel writers held to a general demonic etiology of disease.

“In spite of the frequency with which exorcisms appear in Mark, there are several indications that neither Jesus nor the Evangelists believed that disease was ordinarily caused by demons.” [2]

“To say that no physical impairment is attributed in the Gospels to a demon flies in the face of the evidence. But one can say that the three instances cited constitute a relatively small number and that they do not suggest that either Jesus or the Evangelists held in general to a demonic etiology of disease.” [3]

Ferngren makes the same point I’ve made, that Jesus did not share the demonology of his contemporaries.

“Underlying the view that early Christians ascribed disease wholly or largely to demons is the assumption that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s exorcisms reflect contemporary Jewish views of demonology. The evidence, however, does not suggest that Jesus shared the demonology of his Palestinian contemporaries.”[4]

Ferngren makes the same point I’ve made, that the gospels take care to represent these events as healings rather than exorcisms.

“In most reported instances of illness, however, Jesus is said physically to have healed the sick person rather than to have expelled demons (as in the case of the paralytic in John 5:2–9).” [5]

Ferngren even goes so far as to say that the people coming to Jesus asking for healing, actually expected healing rather than exorcism.

“If those who sought healing from Jesus did so because they believed that demons had caused their diseases, they would probably have expected exorcism rather than healing.” [6]

Thomas makes the same point I’ve made, that attribution of infirmity to satan or demons is confined almost exclusively to the Synoptics and Acts.

“The attribution of infirmity to the Devil or demons is primarily confined to three New Testament documents: Matthew and Luke-Acts. Neither James nor John give any hint that the Devil or demons have a role to play in the infliction of infirmity.” [7]

Thomas even goes so far as to say there are no clear examples of an illness being attributed to demonic activity in Acts.

“However, it is interesting that in Acts, while the lines continue to be occasionally blurred in summary statements, there is not a single concrete example of an illness being directly attributed to demonic activity.” [8]

---

[1] Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 45.

[2] Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 45-46.

[3] Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 46.

[4] Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 45.

[5] Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 45.

[6] Gary B. Ferngren, Medicine and Health Care in Early Christianity (JHU Press, 2009), 46.

[7] John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 13 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 301.

[8] John Christopher Thomas, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance: Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 13 (Sheffield, Eng.: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 302.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Ferngren makes the same point I’ve made, that Jesus did not share the demonology of his contemporaries.

@Jonathan_Burke

Your detailed treatment of Ferngren’s work is INCREDIBLY helpful for me (and no doubt many others) to understand the boundaries of the general thesis.

And since my reading of Aslan’s book, ZEALOT ( c. 2013), I am particularly interested in making distinctions in what Jesus thought, vs. what Paul thought (with a messy middle ground held by James and the various other apostles).

So, in principle, the idea that Paul was a skeptic about evil spirits is not impossible. But you seem to want to make Jesus (one end of the spectrum) and Paul (the other end), united in their skepticism - - while I think Mark 5, Acts, and Paul seem to show a UNITY, rather than dissimilarity.

If Paul had seriously disagreed with the “popular” view of evil spirits, i think we would have read about it!

The “Persian Interpretation” of evil spirits goes a long way to explaining the enthusiasm for evil spirits, held by Jew and Non-Jew in the Near East… and it was carried by Christian biases all over the world.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

As it is now a New Year, and I wish to take up new enterprises, I will take my leave of this particular discussion. However, since George and Jordan and others have shown an interest in the general topic of demons, possession, and exorcism in Mark and in the New Testament and in early Christianity generally, I think it might be helpful if I provide some links to detailed studies in this area which cover the topics of our discussion.

Thomas Farrar has published several items in this area, including:

http://www.dianoigo.com/publications/When_an_unclean_spirit_goes_out_of_a_person_Jan2015.pdf,

http://www.dianoigo.com/publications/New%20Testament%20Satanology%20and%20Leading%20Suprahuman%20Opponents%20in%20Second%20Temple%20Jewish%20Literature%20-%20A%20Religion-Historical%20Analysis_AOV.pdf,

and

http://dianoigo.com/publications/Satanology_and_Demonology_in_the_Apostol.pdf

The last of these articles responds, critically but politely, to Jonathan Burke’s above-cited article on demons in the Apostolic Fathers. The second article, which was also published in the Journal of Theological Studies, covers the general topic of Jewish and Christian Satanology in the early period. The first article covers – very thoroughly – much of what we have discussed here, including the theory of “accommodation” (and alternatives to it), the secondary literature cited by Jonathan Burke (and some other secondary literature besides), many New Testament passages going beyond Mark and even beyond the Synoptics, and many particular arguments of Jonathan Burke and of other Christadelphians.

Farrar shows great familiarity with the scholarship, which he interprets (in many cases) differently from J. Burke. He also shows facility in Hellenistic Greek. Readers here can make up their own minds who has presented the stronger case, but I thought they should be aware of alternate views in the scholarly literature that directly take account of the views and arguments of J. Burke (and of other Christadelphians, and of others who doubt that Mark believed in demons).

A Happy New Year to all at Peaceful Science!

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

That’s your first error. It should be at least partly justified by what’s said in the passage itself.

As I’ve pointed out, you can’t understand what’s said in the passage itself, until you’ve considered it in its broader context. But I did justify it “at least party”, by what’s said in the passage itself.

@Eddie

That is a perfectly good procedure, but I don’t see where you have done it. Where are all your references to other chapters of Mark? I look above for references to other chapters and verses, and find none.

Maybe read my posts? I didn’t cite chapter and verse, but I did speak about the general content of Mark’s gospel, and what we do and don’t find there concerning demons.

@Eddie

There is so little of Mark in your interpretation of Mark, and so much speculation and conjecture from contemporary scholarship, that Mark becomes almost a nobody in your reading. He’s told what he’s allowed to mean by modern scholars. They determine what the sitz im leben is, and then Mark is made into a puppet who writes what he writes under the spell of the sitz im leben . He doesn’t have any teaching to offer; he just mirrors the spirit of the age.

This is nonsense. All you’re doing is demonstrating your antipathy to the historical critical method, and proving what I said before; that you want to insulate the text from its broader context, read it literally, and interpret it the way you want.

@Eddie

Since it is not historically true that Jesus cast out any demons, then Mark misrepresents what actually happened in the past.

I don’t think you understand how accommodation works. I don’t believe Mark was lying.

@Eddie

What kind of truth? I’m not at all upset if God didn’t reveal the truths of astronomy or quantum physics or the physiology of the liver to a writer. It doesn’t bother me at all if the Bible contains what we would now call scientific errors. But if a writer makes an error about matters pertaining to God, Jesus, sin, eternal life, Satan, demons, angels, etc., then there is a problem.

Well that’s just inconsistent. You’re saying you’re ok with God misrepresenting the truth in some cases, as long as He doesn’t misrepresent the truth in other cases.

@Eddie

Who’s doing so? Not me. I’ve said a hundred times here and on BioLogos that I don’t read Genesis 1-11 as history; I don’t regard Genesis 1 as cosmogony so much as cosmology (of a kind); and while I think there is a “historical” core, so to speak, in the Fall story, it’s clear to me that the literary form of the story is closer to the category of myth than the category of history.

Irrelevant. You agree that the Bible makes statements such as the heart being the organ of thought, and the sun orbiting the earth.

@Eddie

…but you’ve treated the whole episode as something intended as accurate history, and in that case, there is no justification for excising some parts of it (the supernatural parts) and keeping other parts of it (the parts that can be explained wholly naturally).

But I am not excising the supernatural parts. The supernatural parts happened; people were supernaturally healed.

@Eddie

There’s no difference in narrative style between the one group of parts and the other, and they are all incorporated into one seamless narrative, as can be seen in the 20 verses quoted above.

That’s just like the argument fundamentalists make about Genesis 1-11, which you don’t read literally. They say “Well if Genesis 1 isn’t literal, and Genesis 2 isn’t literal, and Genesis 3 isn’t literal, then when does Genesis ever start being history?”. As I’ve already pointed out, the wilderness temptation pericope is the same; many mainstream scholars from a wide range of theological backgrounds read it as visionary or metaphorical, despite the apparent “seamless narrative” and “no difference in narrative style” between the pericope and the surrounding text.

@Eddie

It strikes me as bizarre that you are so concerned that we modern scientific people should not allow superstitious accounts of demons into our religion.

I am not. That has never been my argument. Now here’s your problem.

1. If you say you don’t believe in demons, then you have to acknowledge you agree with me, and you face the difficulty of explaining the text yourself, since you definitely believe Mark believed in demons and you find it repugnant to conclude that he didn’t believe in demons but was accommodating his audience.

2. If you say you do believe in demons, then you have the difficulty of demonstrating that demons exist, just as the opponents of Galileo had the difficulty of demonstrating that the sun orbits the earth.

You have painted yourself right into a corner.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

As an interesting discussion, I thought I would put these paragraphs from a Dr. James Tabor here; his contact information for those interested is:

704-687-5188 (messages only)
jdtabor@uncc.edu

Magic and Miracles

We have seen that in the Greco-Roman world at large there was an abundance of magicians and miracle workers, healers and physicians. Palestine was no exception, though some circles were very cautious because of the belief that God, not a powerful human being, was the ultimate source of healing. Nonetheless, the Babylonian and Persian beliefs about angels and demons which influenced the apocalyptic literary tradition also influenced popular religious views about the origins of sickness and disease.

One widespread view about the origin of evil was based on the interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, namely, that the “sons of God” (interpreted as angels) lusted after the “daughters of men” (human women) and produced a race of giants (interpreted as demons). In a reinterpretation of a Genesis story in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Abraham is said to have exorcized a demon from Pharaoh by prayer, the laying on of hands, and rebuking the evil spirit ( GenApoc 20:16-19). David was said to have done the same thing by playing his harp ( LibAntBib 60:1-3) and Noah by medicines and herbs ( Jubilees 10:10-14).

Solomon was especially remembered for his wisdom–here we note the influence of the Wisdom tradition–and that wisdom included his vast knowledge of magic and medicine. Josephus tells the story of the Jewish exorcist Eleazar who performed the following exorcism:

He put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into him, speaking Solomon’s name and reciting the incantations which he had composed.

Antiquities 5:2, 5

In Josephus and the rabbinic literature, Honi the Circle Drawer was remembered for bringing rain by prayer, and the Galilean Hasid (“Pious One”) named Hanina ben Dosa is remembered for healing by prayer. When the son of Yohanan ben Zakkai became ill, Yohanan said,

“Hanina, my son, pray for him that he may live.” He put his head between his knees and prayed; and he lived.

Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 34b

In the stories of the Talmud, the tendency to ascribe the actual healing to God himself is clear, that is, the cure is effected through prayer; nonetheless, it is also clear that particular Holy Men were famous for the ability to heal. Such a man, also, was Jesus of Nazareth.
[END OF QUOTATIONS]

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/the-jewish-world-of-jesus-an-overview/

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Jonathan_Burke

You have painted yourself right into a corner.

No, he had his back to the door.

[John_Dalton]

Came across this, thought it might be of interest.

This Demon, Immortalized in 2,700-Year-Old Assyrian Tablet, Was Thought to...

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Do you accept that Ephesians was written by Paul?

Ephesians 6:12 is a real [gnosticizing] doozy on the issue of evil spirits!:
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

I think we can rightly say that this text would be endorsed by James the Just, as well as by his brother, Jesus.

[Robert]

Seeing that verse out of context, I see no pressing reason to interpret that in terms of literal evil spirits (demons); I could imagine a progressive Christian preaching a sermon on that verse against the iniquities of the Trump administration and their enablers in the political and religious spheres.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Robert

Wait… are you thinking that I am saying Paul is SUPPORTING Evil Spirits? I certainly do not.

But if you are saying that Paul is just HUMORING his audience, that is a load of malarkey.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@gbrooks9

Do you accept that Ephesians was written by Paul?

Yes, but that is not Gnostic at all. That’s a high context statement which, if it was Gnostic, would require as a background the fully fledged Gnosticism we don’t see until well into the second century. There was no Gnosticism in the first century, only a few vague proto-Gnostic elements which wouldn’t be solidified until the early second century.

@gbrooks9

I think we can rightly say that this text would be endorsed by James the Just, as well as by his brother, Jesus.

Yes. But I don’t see any evil spirits here. I read it the way Robert is reading it. This is a problem for people trying to cram demons and evil spirits into Paul’s writings; he doesn’t use the right language. You have an uphill job explaining why he doesn’t use the common language for these beings that everyone else was using, and why he never speaks of exorcism or exorcists. Even here, the battle array Paul advises for the Christian battling against spiritual evil, is entirely non-supernatural; faith, truth, prayer, righteousness, the gospel. This is not the language of battle against supernatural evil forces.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Yes, but that is not Gnostic at all. That’s a high context statement which, if it was Gnostic, would require as a background the fully fledged Gnosticism we don’t see until well into the second century. There was no Gnosticism in the first century, only a few vague proto-Gnostic elements which wouldn’t be solidified until the early second century.

@Jonathan_Burke:

“powers and principalities” is a signature phrase from the groups that latter-day historians lump together into gnosticism.

The entire relevant text of Ephesians 6:10-12 reads:

"Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

If you don’t think this isn’t a clear admission that there is “spiritual wickedness in the Heavens”, then I would say you are marking out New Testament territory just as obscure and beyond the fringe as any Young Earth Creationist might to to defend his or her unrealistic position.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@gbrooks9

“powers and principalities” is a signature phrase from the groups that latter-day historians lump together into gnosticism.

Those groups did not exist in the first century. You’re trying to retrofit their language to an earlier era.

@gbrooks9

The entire relevant text of Ephesians 6:10-12 reads:

I know how it reads.

@gbrooks9

If you don’t think this isn’t a clear admission that there is “spiritual wickedness in the Heavens”…

Even Jerome said it wasn’t talking about spiritual wickedness in the heavens. He said that would make no sense since God could not abide evil spirits in His abode.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Those groups did not exist in the first century. You’re trying to retrofit their language to an earlier era.

@Jonathan_Burke

I’m sure I couldn’t say anything about the definition of gnosticism that you wouldn’t use against me.

But there have been “gnostifying” groups in the Levant since the rise of the Maccabees. They might not meet the official definition (whichever way you want to define them)… but powers and principalities and the overall context of the Ephesians text reinforces the New Testament references to evil spirits.

Jerome can argue whatever he wants… but I don’t think Paul was saying there are evil ones IN HEAVEN… This is not the same as a generic reference to the realm of the angels.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@gbrooks9

But there have been “gnostifying” groups in the Levant since the rise of the Maccabees. They might not meet the official definition (whichever way you want to define them)…

Pro tip George; don’t make sweeping statements about Gnostics and Gnosticism which you can’t support because you’re not familiar with the relevant scholarship. Really simple. There’s no Gnosticism in the New Testament.

@gbrooks9

but powers and principalities and the overall context of the Ephesians text reinforces the New Testament references to evil spirits.

Goodness me, not at all. Simple question; why doesn’t Paul actually, you know, mention evil spirits? Why did he go all coy and say anything but that?

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Jonathan_Burke

Really simple. There’s no Gnosticism in the New Testament.

Like I said:

@gbrooks9

I’m sure I couldn’t say anything about the definition of gnosticism that you wouldn’t use against me.

@Jonathan_Burke

This is why I use the term “gnosticizing”… it is not gnosticism per se. But it is certainly an embrace of the dark/evil powers on a spiritual level.

There really is no other interpretation.

[Jonathan_Burke]

@gbrooks9

This is why I use the term “gnosticizing”… it is not gnosticism per se. But it is certainly an embrace of the dark/evil powers on a spiritual level.

Well that’s not what you said before. If that’s all you meant then you don’t need any reference to Gnostics at all. In my experience as soon as someone waves around the word “Gnostic” it’s clear they’re using it as a fig leaf for something they don’t have evidence for.

@gbrooks9

But it is certainly an embrace of the dark/evil powers on a spiritual level. There really is no other interpretation.

Well apart from the other interpretations which many people have given down the centuries. Apart from those, yeah.

[Robert]

In the context of this thread, I did make that reading of what you were trying to say, assuming that you mean supporting the existence of evil spirits. Your subsequent posts in this thread reinforce that impression.

Powers and principalities turn up later in history as ranks of angels, and secondarily demons. But does this usage predate Ephesians?

I’m not convinced by Jonathan Burke’s analysis of the episode of the Gadarene Swine (his accounting for the death of the swine strikes me as maltheistic), but I see nothing in this passage from Ephesians that requires interpretation as more than the use of metaphor and idiom in describing purely human evil. To make a case to the contrary I think that you have to resort to analysis of the original Greek and the cultural context.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Robert

Powers and principalities turn up later in history as ranks of angels, and secondarily demons. But does this usage predate Ephesians?

The first uses of the phrase “Powers and Principalities” are in connection with daemons, spirits or cosmic forces.

@Robert, Jonathan is playing a bit of a word game with the term gnostic… since it is notoriously known that the groups we might call “gnostic” never used the term. And thus the terms gnostic and gnosticism is a retroactive analysis.

There’s nothing in the New Testament that would allow a full-fledged characterization of this retroactively applied term… but that doesn’t mean we can’t speak about the veins and threads of thought that run throughout what would later be called Gnosticism.

Prior to Gnosticism is: an undefined mess. But we can see plenty of this mess raise its head in Paul’s life time… even before Paul’s lifetime.

One could argue that all the Christians who went willing to die in the Colosseum were the very first Christian gnostics … “life is a prison, let us speed to Heaven”. Rome was so efficient at ending the martyrs, pretty soon the only ones left to man the churches and assemblies were those who weren’t so convinced of gnostic ways.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

Burke is right to say that Gnosticism in the developed form is not until after the New Testament. But that doesn’t mean that themes and notions found fully developed in Gnosticism couldn’t have appeared in simpler form in earlier literature, including some New Testament books. I have no dog in this fight; it’s a matter of indifference to me whether or not some New Testament writings show a proto-Gnosticism. But I do think that we mustn’t allow pedantry to rule our discussions, so I accept George’s general point.

Regarding Paul and demons specifically, I haven’t closely studied the texts, so I offer no opinion. But regarding the Synoptics, I think it’s clear that the writers treated demons as real and as personal entities, not just as colorful personifications of diseases and mental ailments.